History of The Graph

The Historical Evolution of GRT and The Graph Protocol

The Graph’s origins trace back to an increasingly urgent need for decentralized indexing solutions in the post-ICO, DApp-heavy blockchain ecosystem. The founders—Yaniv Tal, Jannis Pohlmann, and Brandon Ramirez—recognized that querying blockchain data directly from smart contracts was inefficient and often unscalable. This problem became more pronounced with the growth of decentralized applications across Ethereum, where developers needed reliable ways to retrieve data without resorting to centralized infrastructures like proprietary APIs or custodial data aggregators.

The project launched in 2018 and remained in development for over two years before its mainnet launch in December 2020. During this closed development period, The Graph operated using a hosted service—effectively a semi-centralized approach that allowed developers to integrate subgraphs without dealing with the protocol’s early infrastructure complexities. This hybrid approach drew criticism from purists in the decentralization community, though it proved effective in bootstrapping adoption. By the time mainnet launched, The Graph had already indexed data for Uniswap, Synthetix, and Balancer.

The introduction of GRT, the native ERC-20 token, was closely tied to the protocol’s transition to a decentralized model. GRT was designed to coordinate economic incentive structures between Indexers, Curators, and Delegators. Early on, however, governance ambiguity and unclear staking parameters created friction. Many stakeholders expressed concern over the initial token economics, particularly the risks tied to slashing—a mechanism that penalizes Indexers for poor performance or malicious behavior. This often discouraged smaller participants from engaging directly with indexing roles.

The team’s decision to build exclusively on Ethereum also raised early debates. While Ethereum was the most developer-active ecosystem at the time, its scalability limitations created latency issues for querying highly sought-after data. Only later did The Graph develop plans for multi-chain support, inspired in part by performance pressure and the rise of competing indexing solutions.

Technical setbacks did occasionally arise. During load spikes, the protocol’s hosted service experienced frequent downtimes and API call failures. This highlighted bottlenecks and underscored the difficulty of transitioning from a trusted model to a completely decentralized network—a recurring challenge seen across other blockchain projects like NEAR Protocol and Hedera.

Despite these issues, The Graph’s ecosystem grew rapidly around the concept of subgraphs—modular APIs organizing raw blockchain data into structured, queryable formats. This allowed developers to focus on application logic while offloading complex data retrievals, though questions around long-term incentive sustainability for Indexers and the progressive role of Curators remain focal points within the protocol’s historical context.

How The Graph Works

How The Graph (GRT) Protocol Works: Indexing Web3 at Scale

At its core, The Graph provides decentralized indexing and querying services for blockchain data, facilitating efficient access to on-chain information without reliance on centralized APIs or specialized server infrastructure. It leverages a multi-layered protocol composed of Indexers, Curators, Delegators, and Subgraph developers — each fulfilling distinct functions to power a decentralized data economy.

Subgraphs and the Role of Indexers

The architectural backbone of The Graph is the subgraph — an open API definition that specifies how blockchain data should be extracted, transformed, and made queryable. Subgraphs are composed using a Subgraph Manifest, written in YAML, defining smart contract sources, the events of interest, and the data model (schema). Developers write mappings in AssemblyScript, which ingest event data and translate it into structured data stored in a Graph Node.

Indexers run Graph Nodes, staking GRT tokens to be eligible to index subgraphs and serve queries. Their performance directly impacts rewards and reputation, incentivizing high uptime and efficient query provisioning. Indexers compete on service quality and pricing, introducing market dynamics into data availability.

Economic Participation Through Delegators and Curators

Delegators contribute to network security and decentralization by staking GRT on Indexers without operating infrastructure. In return, they receive a portion of indexing rewards and query fees, but they also share in indexing slashing risk. This structure helps distribute responsibility while diversifying participation.

Curators signal on subgraphs they believe are valuable and likely to be used. They deposit GRT into bonding curves, which determine which subgraphs Indexers prioritize. This market-driven curation process is designed to surface high-quality data sources, but speculation-driven signaling can distort signals and inflate less valuable subgraphs, introducing inefficiencies.

Querying with GraphQL and Monetization Through Microtransactions

The protocol uses GraphQL for querying, allowing composable and granular access to indexed data. Queries are monetized through micropayments in GRT. Gateways match queries with Indexers via a negotiation process considering latency, cost, and availability. Over time, The Graph is transitioning query charging from centralized gateways to fully decentralized billing, but the current hybrid model introduces partial centralization.

Compression and caching strategies vary across Indexers, impacting consistency and determinism—a critical tradeoff. Query volume spikes or malformed subgraph mappings can cause failures, with limited real-time failover or service-level guarantees.

The interactions between participants resemble components discussed in The Impact of Layer-2 Solutions on Blockchain Scalability, where off-chain computation plays a growing role in managing decentralized workloads.

Use Cases

Real-World Use Cases of GRT: Powering Web3 Data Indexing

The Graph (GRT) functions as a decentralized indexing protocol for querying blockchain data, a core infrastructure mechanism that almost every dapp with dynamic on-chain data consumes behind the scenes. GRT’s primary use case is to incentivize and govern participation in the network of Indexers, Curators, and Delegators who make this decentralized querying possible.

Indexing Protocol for Dapps

The most immediate utility of GRT is within The Graph’s indexing ecosystem. Developers define subgraphs—open APIs specifying what blockchain data to index and how to store it—allowing decentralized applications to efficiently query that data. GRT is staked by Indexers to process these subgraphs and respond to queries, forming the monetary basis of query work. Curators use GRT to signal high-quality subgraphs, helping prioritize indexing based on demand signals. This is akin to attention markets on-chain, albeit not fully immune to manipulation by whales or misaligned curatorial behavior.

Query Market and Microtransaction Layer

GRT serves as the native currency facilitating the query market. When an application sends a user query (e.g., fetching the latest NFT trades), it pays a micro-fee in GRT tokens to the Indexer processing that request. The value of this model lies in its decentralization—there’s no need for centralized backends or proprietary APIs to aggregate blockchain data. This has made The Graph fundamental infrastructure for DeFi dashboards, DAO interfaces, and NFT platforms. However, cost unpredictability remains an issue due to fluctuating fees and variable load balancing across Indexers, which can deter dev teams operating on constrained budgets.

Delegation Staking

Delegators, who are not directly running indexing infrastructure, can stake GRT to existing Indexers to earn a proportion of the query fees and indexing rewards. This is one of GRT’s passive use cases, offering token holders exposure to protocol revenue. However, the delegation ecosystem faces skewed returns due to Indexer over-concentration, making it yield-inefficient for smaller participants.

Governance

Although governance is not a dominant use case yet, GRT token holders are technically part of The Graph’s protocol upgrade structure and parameter tuning decisions. This aligns it somewhat with governance frameworks seen in other ecosystems such as https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-near-protocols-revolutionary-tokenomics and https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-hederas-innovative-governance-model. In practice, however, participation concentration and technical complexity curb meaningful decentralization in decision-making.

While GRT’s use cases position it as a foundational utility token for decentralized Web3 data infrastructure, practical bottlenecks like economic centralization, technical onboarding friction, and governance apathy underscore a system facing both scalability and alignment hurdles.

The Graph Tokenomics

Inside GRT Tokenomics: Supply Design, Incentives, and Distribution

The Graph (GRT) features a utility token designed to coordinate decentralized indexing and querying of blockchain data. Its tokenomics architecture is structured to incentivize efficient data curation, indexing, and gateway services on the protocol, while providing a staking-based mechanism to enforce economic security.

GRT operates with a fixed total supply of 10 billion initial tokens. While inflationary emissions are introduced to incentivize indexers, they are dynamically balanced through protocol-level fee burning mechanisms. Fees paid by users for query services are partially burned (depending on demand), creating deflationary pressure in high-usage scenarios. This dual-token flow—token minting via inflation and token burning through usage—aims to balance long-term emission dynamics with ecosystem health. Notably, this shares similarities with inflation-mitigation techniques seen in other protocols discussed in Decoding HBAR’s Tokenomics for Future Growth.

Staking plays a central role in GRT's security model. Indexers—node operators who process and serve queries—must stake GRT to participate. A slashable mechanism penalizes dishonest or underperforming behavior, enforcing data integrity in a decentralized environment. Delegators, who stake GRT to support trustworthy indexers, share in the rewards but aren’t subject to slashing, promoting broader participation. Curators—another vital participant role—signal valuable subgraphs by depositing GRT into bonding curves, indirectly influencing what data gets indexed and prioritized for discovery.

Distribution of the token supply presents some areas of potential centralization. A sizable portion of GRT was allocated at genesis to early backers and the founding team. While vesting schedules aimed to mitigate dumping risk, the degree of long-term decentralization remains unclear without granular, updated disclosure of holdings. This issue echoes similar concerns raised in NEAR Protocol: The Flaws Behind the Promise, where strategic token distributions raised questions about influence over network direction.

Query fees—paid in GRT—present another variable in the protocol's economic sustainability. These are affected by off-chain market pricing and indexer bidding strategies. Since prices aren't fixed, this creates a non-deterministic experience for dApps leveraging The Graph for data retrieval. Combined with fluctuating token emissions and the evolving price of staking returns, the net yield for protocol participants lacks predictable modeling.

Ultimately, GRT’s tokenomics offer a complex incentive architecture blending staking, curation, and burn mechanics. However, token concentration and unpredictable fee dynamics pose structural challenges to longer-term economic balance.

The Graph Governance

GRT Governance: Exploring the Mechanics of Decentralized Decision-Making in The Graph

GRT’s governance architecture is rooted in a delegated staking model that bridges tokenomics and protocol stewardship. Unlike systems that rely on informal off-chain signaling or token-weighted forums, The Graph has implemented a governance framework centered on the Graph Council and community participation through on-chain signaling mechanisms. However, this approach raises both scalability and inclusivity challenges that merit deeper scrutiny.

At its core, governance within The Graph is facilitated by the Graph Council—a multi-party committee responsible for executing upgrades, allocating funds, and managing key protocol parameters. This council includes representatives from core development teams, ecosystem partners, and independent stakeholders. While designed to be diverse, the selection mechanism for these council members is opaque relative to more open nomination processes found in governance-first protocols like NEAR. For comparison, see how NEAR Protocol leverages community-driven structures in their governance https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/governance-unleashed-near-protocols-community-driven-model.

GRT holders also play a role in governance by participating in the Graph Improvement Proposal (GIP) process. However, the signaling isn't directly executed through token voting on most critical decisions. Instead, GRT acts more as a reputational stake rather than a raw voting token, which can obscure accountability. Although this model aims to minimize plutocracy, it inadvertently reduces transparent influence from smaller stakeholders compared to more rigidly democratic systems.

On-chain voting exists in limited functional scopes (e.g., signaling support for GIPs), but important decisions continue to rely on council-centric pathways. This blended model, while offering some protection against governance capture, also abstracts power away from the broader token_holder base. In contrast, truly decentralized blockchains with direct on-chain governance—like those described in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-hederas-innovative-governance-model—might offer a more transparent model, though often at the cost of operational agility.

Additionally, GRT’s governance suffers from the same participation problem seen in many DAOs: low voter turnout. The technical barrier to entering the GIP creation process and the lack of streamlined delegation flows hinder active decentralization. Despite being open-source and community-oriented on paper, governance dynamics continue to be shaped by core developers and early participants, disproportionately affecting proposal outcomes.

As The Graph scales beyond Ethereum to serve multi-chain indexing, the need for adaptive, inclusive, and transparent governance becomes increasingly pressing—a challenge not unique to The Graph, but one accentuated by its foundational role in Web3 data infrastructure.

Technical future of The Graph

GRT and The Graph: Technical Progress and Roadmap Evolution

The Graph is navigating a pivotal phase in its technical development, aiming to replace its legacy hosted service—which played a central role during its initial adoption—with a fully decentralized, production-grade network. This migration involves abstracting core indexing functionalities to enable multiple subgraph execution environments. Currently, work is underway to establish Firehose and Substreams as new data ingestion layers, facilitating horizontal scaling and reducing the tight coupling between blockchain nodes and indexers.

Firehose has already been integrated for chains like Ethereum, NEAR, and Avalanche, enabling high-performance parallel block processing. This decoupling allows indexers to work independently of full nodes, a critical step in decentralization. Substreams extend this by enabling developers to write composable data transformation pipelines using Rust. These pipelines dramatically reduce redundancy and performance bottlenecks previously associated with the Graph Node.

A major component in The Graph’s technical evolution is the move toward chain-agnostic support. After years of Ethereum-centric indexing, the protocol is expanding to multiple L1 and L2 networks, aligning with the movement toward multichain data interoperability. This trajectory mirrors the approach taken by other multichain projects covered in Unlocking Potential: NEAR Protocol Use Cases Explored, aiming to position The Graph as an indexing backbone across the Web3 stack.

However, technical debt remains a challenge. Legacy tooling such as Graph CLI and AssemblyScript-based subgraph development are increasingly seen as bottlenecks. Migration to Substreams demands a higher developer skill ceiling, possibly hindering adoption despite improved performance. Additionally, concerns exist around protocol economic design—query fees, incentives for indexers, and delegation rewards remain under refinement, potentially impacting stability and participation.

Looking ahead, modular architecture is gaining importance, with protocol components being restructured to accommodate future upgrades without core architectural rewrites. For example, “Graphcast”—an offchain gossip layer—is being explored to enable indexers to share proofs of indexing and improve data consistency without channeling everything on-chain. This aligns with broader trends in off-chain scaling, as discussed in The Impact of Layer-2 Solutions on Blockchain Scalability: Beyond the Hype.

The broader developer experience is also under focus. Enhancements like decentralized subgraph publishing, permissionless curation markets, and streamlined query fee collection mechanisms are all under active development. Yet, high complexity and resource requirements continue to limit new indexer entrants—raising concerns about the long-term decentralization and resilience of the network.

Comparing The Graph to it’s rivals

GRT vs LINK: A Functional Comparison in Decentralized Data Infrastructure

GRT (The Graph) and LINK (Chainlink) both occupy critical pillars in the decentralized web, yet they approach the problem of data trust and accessibility from fundamentally different architectures and design choices.

At the core, The Graph is a decentralized query protocol designed to index and query blockchain data efficiently using GraphQL. GRT incentivizes a network of Indexers, Curators, and Delegators within a subgraph-based model that creates structured, application-specific APIs. Conversely, Chainlink provides decentralized oracles that deliver off-chain data to on-chain smart contracts—essentially solving the “oracle problem” via a network of node operators securing real-world data feeds.

Where LINK outperforms GRT in breadth is its protocol-agnostic oracle network. It connects with any blockchain and bridges not just data, but randomness (via VRF), automation (Keepers), and cross-chain messaging (CCIP). These verticals give LINK greater composability across DeFi, gaming, and insurance use cases, areas where GRT is not directly functional.

However, The Graph has an edge when dealing strictly with on-chain data. Subgraphs bring granular, up-to-date indexing for explorers, dashboards, and dapps such as Uniswap and ENS. GRT’s query mechanism is deterministic and cost-efficient when compared to building individual indexing layers, something projects have historically handled in-house before adopting The Graph.

On token economics, LINK’s model does not currently enforce staking at the protocol layer, as staking remains opt-in for node operators. GRT, however, requires Indexers to stake tokens to serve queries, while Curators and Delegators influence subgraph quality and earn query fees. This introduces a more transparent economic alignment among protocol participants but also creates a higher entry barrier that has led to oligopolistic tendencies among Indexers.

From a decentralization standpoint, both protocols are still maturing. LINK has faced criticism for its reliance on the Chainlink Foundation and select data providers controlling large portions of query traffic—a centralization vector mirrored in GRT’s concentrated Indexer set. In both, governance remains mostly off-chain or controlled by foundation-linked bodies, comparable to concerns raised in projects like NEAR Protocol with its governance drawbacks, as discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/near-protocol-the-flaws-behind-the-promise.

In terms of developer adoption, LINK has more widespread integration thanks to its middleware role in multi-chain ecosystems, whereas GRT’s integration is deeper but often less visible, baked into front-end protocols rather than contractual logic.

While GRT and LINK may be grouped under data infrastructure, their roles in the stack are orthogonal—one querying on-chain ecosystems and the other porting off-chain data into them—each with distinct trade-offs in scalability, decentralization, and composability.

GRT vs BAND: Decentralized Data Indexing Infrastructure Compared

While The Graph (GRT) has become nearly synonymous with decentralized data querying, BAND Protocol operates in a different corner of the Web3 stack—namely, cross-chain data oracles. Yet the lines blur when considering their parallel roles in enabling dApps to access reliable data: GRT through indexed subgraphs of blockchain data, and BAND through real-world off-chain data relayed on-chain. The functional difference is distinct, but not irrelevant for developers choosing a data tooling stack.

Where GRT uses a subgraph-based indexing architecture querying blockchain-native data indexed from Ethereum or L2 networks, BAND operates an independent oracle network built on Cosmos SDK, distributing data feeds from centralized APIs onto blockchains. This highlights a foundational distinction: GRT’s architecture is tightly coupled with the blockchain’s internal state, while BAND’s model revolves around sourcing immutable snapshots of external-world data.

One of the edge cases where they overlap is in integrating chain-agnostic data for indexing. As GRT expands into multi-chain interoperability, like indexing NEAR or EVM-compatible chains, developers consider alternatives like BAND to supplement real-world metrics such as token prices or off-chain sensor data. The drawback for BAND here is its dependency on centralized data sources—a tradeoff that contradicts some of the core tenets of decentralized infrastructure. It raises familiar concerns similar to those discussed in NEAR Protocol The Flaws Behind the Promise, where architectural contradictions can limit trustlessness in practice.

BAND’s model also struggles with data versioning and replayability. Whereas GRT’s subgraphs create deterministic data snapshots that can be re-queried with identical outputs—a key requirement for decentralized reputation and trust—BAND’s ephemeral oracle responses may lack auditability. In developer workflows where verifiability and reproducibility matter (e.g., in DeFi or DAO financial reporting), this becomes a meaningful limitation.

From a scalability perspective, BAND offers faster transaction finality than GRT’s Ethereum-centric execution. However, the performance gain comes with a cost: validator decentralization. BAND’s validator set remains highly curated, limiting censorship resistance. Comparatively, GRT’s open curator and indexer model—although complex—affords stronger network-level neutrality.

In a nutshell, GRT and BAND serve complementary yet competitively adjacent roles. But for developers prioritizing on-chain state accuracy, deterministic querying, and modular schema support, BAND falls short in areas where GRT leans on structured indexing methodologies critical to scalable dApp development.

GRT vs. API3: Decentralized Data Query vs. First-Party Oracle Networks

The comparison between GRT (The Graph) and API3 surfaces fundamental design differences in how each protocol approaches decentralized data provisioning in Web3 ecosystems. While both serve the critical function of providing dApps with reliable and transparent data feeds, the core divergence lies in their architectural philosophy: GRT builds a decentralized indexing layer to query blockchain data, whereas API3 facilitates direct access to off-chain data from first-party oracle nodes.

GRT relies on a network of indexers, curators, and delegators to crawl, index, and serve blockchain data through open APIs called subgraphs. This model focuses on on-chain data sourced from smart contracts across multiple blockchains, with query capabilities delivered via GraphQL endpoints. It excels at accessing historical and real-time data within a trust-minimized, censorship-resistant framework.

API3, on the other hand, eliminates reliance on third-party blockchain oracles by allowing first-party data providers to operate their own oracle nodes. This is achieved through its Airnode infrastructure—a lightweight oracle gateway hosted by the data providers themselves. This design minimizes the risk of middleman-induced corruption but introduces operational dependencies on the data source's capacity to self-host reliable nodes. This is a stark contrast to GRT’s approach, which decentralizes accountability through a protocol-native incentive layer and slashing conditions for misbehavior.

API3’s integration focuses primarily on real-world, off-chain data such as weather, price feeds, or sports scores—contexts where GRT is mostly absent by design. GRT is not an oracle and does not ingest off-chain data, which gives API3 an edge in sectors like DeFi derivatives or parametric insurance. However, the utility of such integrations often ties the protocol's decentralization guarantees to the uptime, trustworthiness, and economic incentives of singular data sources. This hybridization walks a fine line between decentralization and traditional API centrality.

While API3 has carved its niche with Airnode and the “oracle-as-a-service” paradigm, some critics raise concerns about the protocol's complexity in coordinating data providers at scale. Self-hosted Airnodes require technical commitment from providers, and robustness of the overall infrastructure may vary outside high-value, incentivized use cases. Comparing that to GRT’s subgraph-hosting incentives via on-chain mechanisms shows a more mature framework for long-term reliability, especially in querying blockchain-native data.

The difference in scope positions GRT as foundational for projects focused on indexing and exploring blockchain data, while API3 aims to bridge a broader data gap between Web2 and Web3—a road shared by other protocols discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-overlooked-role-of-blockchain-in-creating-transparent-and-accountable-supply-chains. This philosophical divergence reiterates the broader debate between indexing protocols and oracle middleware.

Primary criticisms of The Graph

Primary Criticisms of GRT, The Graph: Indexing Tradeoffs, Centralization & Governance Concerns

While The Graph (GRT) is often heralded as the “Google of blockchains,” aimed at decentralizing data indexing across smart contract platforms, it’s far from impervious to serious criticism. The following breakdown highlights the most compelling issues voiced by developers, node operators, and protocol researchers within the crypto-native community.

1. Indexing Quality is Economically Driven, Not Decentralization-Driven

One core criticism revolves around the very design of The Graph's incentivization mechanism. Indexers prioritize subgraphs based on economic returns rather than data utility or integrity. This introduces a form of implicit centralization—popular, high-reward subgraphs become highly indexed and performant, while less profitable or lower-volume subgraphs suffer from latency or even complete lack of support. Instead of democratizing data access, the model risks reinforcing data silos based on financial incentive.

2. Delegation Pools Encourage Passive Centralization

The delegation mechanism, while seemingly empowering token holders, tends to funnel GRT into a small number of high-reputation Indexers. Delegators, chasing yield, often fail to consider technical merit, thereby creating a feedback loop in which large Indexers accrue more stake, influence, and query volume. This dynamic undermines protocol-level resilience and fosters systemic dependency on a minority of actors, contrary to the network’s decentralization thesis. Similar centralizing tendencies can be seen in proof-of-stake models explored in NEAR Protocol: The Flaws Behind the Promise.

3. Curator Model Suffers from Subjectivity and Poor Signal Quality

In theory, Curators signal high-quality subgraphs by staking GRT on their selection. In practice, the model struggles with adverse selection and manipulation. Early insiders or developers with intimate knowledge of upcoming protocol usage can stake on subgraphs before they gain network-wide visibility, extracting outsized economic gains while later Curators face diluted rewards. Furthermore, the curation market is illiquid and often reflects hype instead of objective utility.

4. DAO Governance and Protocol Upgrades Are Still Semi-Centralized

Despite The Graph Foundation’s efforts to decentralize governance through DAOs like Graph AdvocatesDAO and Graph Council, skeptics argue that meaningful decision-making remains concentrated among early stakeholders and core team participants. Proposal lifecycle transparency and on-chain governance participation rates often lag behind expectations, drawing comparisons to other governance bottlenecks discussed in Decoding Stellar Lumens Governance in Cryptocurrency.

5. Indexing Performance Bottlenecks

Although subgraphs can be queried in near real-time once indexed, that initial indexing process remains both resource-intensive and technically complex. Smaller Indexers, lacking capital to run high-performance infrastructure or stake sufficient GRT, find it difficult to compete. This reinforces a bifurcated network structure that limits accessibility and undermines the network’s promise of permissionless participation.

Founders

Inside The Founding Team of The Graph (GRT): Technical Roots and Governance Dynamics

The Graph (GRT) was developed by a technically rigorous and ideologically-driven trio: Yaniv Tal, Jannis Pohlmann, and Brandon Ramirez. The early architecture of The Graph’s protocol reflects this deep focus on decentralization and information structuring, emerging from a broader frustration with the lack of decentralized indexing infrastructures in Web3. Each co-founder brought a specific domain focus that continues to influence GRT’s trajectory.

Yaniv Tal, the project's most visible figure, has a background in electrical engineering and spent time as a software engineer before co-founding The Graph. His leadership style leans strongly into protocol-first culture, and unlike many founding teams moving toward rapid commercialization or ecosystem expansion, Tal emphasized long-term architectural soundness. This deliberate approach has led to appreciation from developers frustrated by inconsistent Web3 searchability—but also criticism regarding rollout speed and iterative limitations due to a narrow governance framework.

Jannis Pohlmann, responsible for much of The Graph's core design and indexing logic, has been less of a public-facing figure. However, his influence is seen in the early codebase, notably the Graph Node, which parses and organizes blockchain data using the GraphQL language. His contributions are foundational, but the lack of transparency around his current involvement has prompted questions about continuity in development leadership.

Brandon Ramirez, who initially focused on research and protocol economics, authored several early-stage whitepapers and conceptual documents, setting the groundwork for how indexers, curators, and delegators interact on the network. However, his visibility has sharply declined over time, which has fueled community concerns about centralization and founder disengagement.

The Graph Foundation, which now manages key areas of development and grants, was partially established to mitigate dependence on individual founders. Still, the operational handoff raised coordination challenges, particularly during the transition period between The Graph’s hosted service and the official decentralized network. This handoff drew criticism for opacity. Unlike projects with clearer governance evolution models, such as NEAR Protocol’s community-driven approach, The Graph’s governance has been described as technically competent but lacking community inclusivity in decision-making layers.

Although the founding team successfully created an indispensable layer for querying blockchain data, GRT’s leadership dynamics continue to affect user trust—especially among indexers forced to navigate policy rollouts with limited insight into internal decision-making pathways.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://thegraph.com/docs/introduction
• https://thegraph.com/docs/about/overview
• https://github.com/graphprotocol/graph-node
• https://github.com/graphprotocol/indexer
• https://github.com/graphprotocol/docs
• https://www.thegraph.com/roadmap
• https://thegraph.com/docs/en/network/network-overview/
• https://thegraph.com/docs/en/network/indexing/
• https://thegraph.com/blog/the-graph-network-mainnet-launch
• https://thegraph.academy/
• https://thegraph.com/docs/en/developing/creating-a-subgraph/
• https://thegraph.com/docs/en/querying/graphql-api/
• https://thegraph.com/blog/introducing-the-graph-explorer
• https://thegraph.com/blog/migrating-subgraphs-from-hosted-service-to-the-decentralized-network
• https://github.com/graphprotocol/graph-cli
• https://github.com/graphprotocol/hosted-service
• https://thegraph.com/blog/the-graph-network-launch-phase-2
• https://thegraph.com/blog/protocol-economics
• https://thegraph.com/blog/token-migration-ethereum-to-arbitrum
• https://thegraph.com/blog/arbitrum-scaling-the-graph-network